Louisiana Pacific Corporation v. Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer et al

Filing 215

ORDER GRANTING 214 STIPULATION Expanding Deposition and Interrogatory Limits. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/12/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2012)

Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document214 Filed07/11/12 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
JAMI WINTZ MCKEON (SBN 237923)
[e-mail]
ELIZABETH A. FROHLICH (SBN 195454)
[e-mail]
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
CHRISTIAN J. MIXTER
[e-mail]
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.

11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15

LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20

Case No. C 09 03529 JSW
Assigned to the Honorable Jeffrey S. White
(Courtroom 11)

vs.
MONEY MARKET 1 INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTMENT DEALER, MERRILL
LYNCH & CO., INC., MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, AND DEUTSCHE
BANK SECURITIES INC.,

21

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXPANDING DEPOSITION
AND INTERROGATORY LIMITS

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. C 09-03529-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXPANDING DEPOSITION AND INTERROGATORY LIMITS
DB2/ 23333472.1

Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document214 Filed07/11/12 Page2 of 4

1

Plaintiff Louisiana Pacific Corporation (“Louisiana Pacific”) and Defendant Deutsche

2

Bank Securities Inc. (“DBSI”) hereby stipulate, by and through their counsel of record, as

3

follows:

4

WHEREAS, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. and Saveri &

5

Saveri, Inc. (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) represent Louisiana Pacific in this matter and also represent

6

another plaintiff, The Anschutz Corporation (“Anschutz”), in a separate matter entitled The

7

Anschutz Corporation v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 09-3780-SI (the “Anschutz

8

Case”), in which Anschutz asserts claims against DBSI that, like the claims in this matter, relate

9

to Anschutz’s purchases of certain auction rate securities known as Cambers, Pivots and

10

Capstans;

11

WHEREAS, in its Second Amended Complaint, Louisiana Pacific asserts claims against

12

Defendants DBSI and Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer (“MM1”) that are related

13

to Louisiana Pacific’s purchases of certain series of auction rate securities (“ARS”);

14

WHEREAS, Defendant MM1 has filed for and emerged from Chapter 7 bankruptcy

15

proceedings, and Louisiana Pacific and DBSI understand that Defendant MM1 will not actively

16

participate in this litigation;

17

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Counsel has taken the depositions of five (5) DBSI Witnesses in

18

depositions that were captioned in both the Anschutz Case and this case, and wishes to take

19

additional depositions in this case;

20

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Counsel has propounded twenty-nine (29) numbered written

21

interrogatories to DBSI in the Anschutz Case pursuant to FRCP, Rule 33 – which Plaintiff’s

22

Counsel and counsel for DBSI have agreed may be deemed propounded by Louisiana Pacific in

23

this litigation – and wishes to serve further interrogatories upon DBSI in this case;

24

WHEREAS, DBSI served Responses and Objections in the Anschutz Case to

25

Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 23 propounded in that case, which Plaintiff’s Counsel and counsel

26

for DBSI have agreed shall be deemed DBSI’s objections and responses in this litigation;

27
28

WHEREAS, to fully discover the facts surrounding Louisiana Pacific’s allegations and
DBSI’s defenses in this case, Louisiana Pacific believes that it must conduct more than the ten
1
CASE NO. C 09-03529-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXPANDING DEPOSITION AND INTERROGATORY LIMITS
DB2/ 23333472.1

Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document214 Filed07/11/12 Page3 of 4

1

depositions and must serve more than the 25 interrogatories permitted by FRCP, Rule 30;

2

WHEREAS, to fully discover the facts surrounding Louisiana Pacific’s allegations and

3

DBSI’s defenses in this case, DBSI believes that it must conduct more than the ten depositions

4

and must serve more than the 25 interrogatories permitted by FRCP, Rule 30;

5
6

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Counsel and counsel for DBSI have met and conferred and agree
that:

7

1. Louisiana Pacific may take 20 depositions (including the five depositions already

8

taken in both the Anschutz Case and this case), and may serve upon DBSI a total of

9

35 interrogatories (including the twenty-nine interrogatories already served in the

10

Anschutz Case); and

11

2. DBSI may take 20 depositions and may serve upon Louisiana Pacific a total of 35

12
13

interrogatories.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

14

1. Louisiana Pacific may take 20 depositions (including the five depositions already

15

taken in both the Anschutz Case and this case);

16

2. DBSI may take 20 depositions;

17

3. Louisiana Pacific may serve a total of 35 interrogatories upon DBSI (including the

18

twenty-nine interrogatories already served in the Anschutz Case); and

19

4. DBSI may serve a total of 35 interrogatories upon Louisiana Pacific.

20
21

Dated: July 11, 2012

/s/ Andrew M. Hetherington
Attorney for Plaintiff
Louisiana Pacific Corporation

Dated: July 11, 2012

/s/ Christian J. Mixter
Attorney for Defendant
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.

22
23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 12, 2012
Dated: ________________________

_________________________________
Honorable Jeffery S. White
United States District Court Judge

28

CASE NO. C 09-03529-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXPANDING DEPOSITION AND INTERROGATORY LIMITS

2

DB2/ 23333472.1